Hinayana schools no longer exsist, the term was used in relation to the other schools of indian buddhism that Mahayana was "in conflict"*** with and have sice died out.

Theravada isnt Hinayana, but even if the term does apply to it, there is nothing "lesser" about sticking to the original teachings, even if you believe that the Buddha taught other teachings later on to a select few

I don't mean any offense to my own tradition, but I believe that the term Hinayana evokes a straw man argument. It's a nonsensical word imho.

clw_uk wrote:Can i ask in relation to this, who is there or what is it that will be reborn as a human or deva for eternity?

Dear Clw Uk

I am disappointed in your question as the answer should be self-evident but I will answer.

What is it that will be reborn as a human or deva for eternity? None other than the Eternal Spirit.

Then, not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and stood to one side.

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the householder had supreme faith in Ven. Sariputta."

"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else."

What is it that will be reborn as a human or deva for eternity? None other than the Eternal Spirit

There is no such thing in the Buddhadhamma teachings

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form2 to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."

"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about feeling: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about perception: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. 8 After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

To believe in an eternal self or soul is just to cling to one of more of the aggregates as self. The aggregates rise and fall and so there will be dukkha if there is clinging to one or more of them as self. In truth all dhammas are Anatta

The view "i have a self" comes to be because of ignorance which leads to clinging or self-identification

In order to reach nibbana, one needs to remove all thoughts or views of self, of "I am" or notions of exsisting for eternity

View the world, Moghara, as Void — always mindfulto have removed any view about self.

This way one is above & beyond death.This is how one views the worldso as not to be seen by Death's king

Metta

Those who are lust-infatuated fall back to the swirling current (of samsara) like a spider on its self-spun web. This too the wise cut off. Without any longing, they abandon all dukkha and renounce the world

JESUS, BUDDHA & KRISHNA ARE ONE!There is one Christ or Logos or Atman which has appeared as all of God's incarnations.

Krishna comments on his own incarnation:

When goodness grows weak, when evil increases, I make myself a body. In every age I come back to deliver the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner; to establish righteousness. Bhagavad Gita

And Buddha said:

You are my children, I am your father; through me you have been released from your sufferings. I myself having reached the other shore, help others to cross the stream; I myself having attained salvation, am a savior of others; being comforted, I comfort others and lead them to the place of refuge. My thoughts are always in the truth. For lo! my self has become the truth. Whosoever comprehends the truth will see the Blessed One.

I hate to sound like a Moderator here...but this thread is asking on how as Mahayanists/Vajrayanists are/have experiencing benefits from Theravada.

One can always benefit from detailed discussions from the Theravada on doctrinal matters raised here on our sister site at www.dhammawheel.com to facilitate deeper learning and being the more appropriate place for such.

And there are other forums online for expressing theistic or syncretist theist views or better yet, please start your own topic on comparative religious view within the Lounge Forum where it can be properly debated in a coherent manner.

Would appreciate if this thread is kept on track to see how we, who are in the other 2 Traditions, are/have benefited from our other Buddhist Tradition, the Theravada.

Reading the Pali Canon gives me inspiration because it's the closest thing we have to the actual words of the historical Buddha. However, it has taken me a long time to get past the archaic, repetitive language and this still irritates me to some extent. I would much prefer to have the actual transcripts of Shakyamuni Buddha's original lectures, but unfortunately they don't exist anymore--if they were ever written down in the first place.

Once when I was in the 9th or 10th grade, I looked through a book about Theravada Buddhism in order to write a report for school. At the time, the language of the Eightfold Path of "Right this" and "Right that" completely turned me off and seemed dreadfully boring. A few years later, I picked up a book about Zen Buddhism and this fascinated me to no end. I enjoyed the focus on emptiness and on realizing the true nature of mind and the universe. Now more than a decade later, I am still pursuing the same interests but in the realm of Vajrayana.

I have to work hard to see the beauty in Theravada teachings, whereas Mahayana teachings like the Diamond Sutra and appeal to me instantly. I guess this is just the way my personality is.

However, I love the idea of Theravada monks and nuns keeping the core teachings of Lord Buddha alive--I want to hug them all! (Perhaps simply bowing would be more tactful)

ha, funny you should say all that Luke because for myself it's kind of the other way round. when i was 16 i got a copy of the Lotus Sutra out from the local library and with much excitement at the exotic title and beautiful picture of a bronze carving of the Buddha's face on the cover, i opened and began - seemingly endless lists of Bodhisattvas, retinues, world-systems all spilled out and assaulted my senses. not what i expected (though to be fair, i'm not sure what exactly i expected at that age).

a year or two later i picked up a copy of the Dhammapada - and found it completely approachable, educational, wonderful, precious.

now that i'm older (though not necessarily any the wiser lol) i can appreciate both tradition's texts from the persepective of someone trying to walk the path, rather than just an excited kid (though sometimes i think the difference isn't that great lol). i appreciate what, for myself, seems to be the sense of awe the Mayahana sutras attempt to instill, with their cosmical, other-wordly imagery, poetry, grandiouse lists of endless Bodhisattvas etc. i can also appreciate and be grateful for the teachings at the core, amongst all the awe-inspiring, cosmological imagery.The Theravada suttas, in turn, seem imo a lot more down to earth in their choice of language, style, tone. even the mention of devas and spirits, miraculous events and the ilk are referred to completely matter-of-fact. for myself it is always nice to come down from the heady poetry of the sutras and walk amongst the earthy, simple (and profound) teachings of the suttas.

so now i can appreciate both canons, on their own terms and am indeed grateful to the wealth of the Dharma in employing innumerable methods, styles and language to teach all sentientr beings.

Although I too am within Amida's grasp,Passions obstruct my eyes and I cannot see him;Nevertheless, great compassion is untiring and illumines me always.- Shinran